Both parties are in fantasy land – but Sunak’s tax attack on Labour is rich given what his government has cost voters

Published

1 year ago

June 5, 2024

admin

Before we get on to any of the numbers – from Rishi Sunak’s claim about Labour raising taxes by £2,000 to the more outlandish numbers going around today – here’s the most important thing you have to know right now.

The parties fighting this election have yet to publish their manifestos. They might come as soon as next week, but until those documents, with their shopping lists of confirmed policies, actually land, we are in a kind of policy no man’s land where each side is guessing (and sometimes plain making up stuff) about what the other side actually wants to implement if they win the election.

Election latest:
Starmer wins another TV debate poll

And since all parties like to talk a lot about exciting new things they’d spend money on and not half as much about the taxes they’d raise to pay for all that stuff, it doesn’t take a mathematical whizz to realise that if you take them all quite literally then you can impute some pretty big “black holes” in their plans.

Those “black holes” matter because both Labour and Conservatives have signed up to fiscal rules preventing them from splurging without limit. So if there is a hole, the assumption is it would have to be filled by raising taxes.

However, in the absence of either manifestos or detailed costing plans, the best we can do about all this for the time being is to speculate.

Tap here to follow Politics at Jack at Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts

Does Sunak’s claim about Labour taxes stand up?

That brings us back to the claim Rishi Sunak made in last night’s debate, that Labour will raise everyone’s taxes by £2,000. This is a direct consequence of this information vacuum.

It comes from a “dossier” published by the Tories last month, back before the election was called, which purported to calculate all Labour’s proposed tax and spending plans.

The headline finding from that paper was that over the course of the next four years Labour had roughly £59bn of spending plans (at least as far as the Tories claimed) but only £20bn of revenue raising plans. That leaves a £39bn hole. Divide that £39bn by the number of households in the country (18.4m) and you get a figure of just over £2,000. Voila: £2,000 of unaccounted tax rises or spending cuts which, said Rishi Sunak last night, would inevitably be filled with extra taxes.

Now, there are all sorts of objections to the way the Conservatives have carried out this exercise. For one thing, they deployed a weapon Labour don’t have: because they’re the party of government they were able to ask Treasury civil servants to cost some of the Labour policies (or rather, the policies they think Labour will implement – remember, those manifestos haven’t yet been published!).

Today there has been a backlash – including from the Treasury’s permanent secretary himself – about the way the Tories have portrayed these sums.

What the Tories have already cost households

The £2,000 figure isn’t really a Treasury calculation or for that matter an “independent” one, as Mr Sunak called it last night. It’s a Conservative figure – but it was put together in part with figures commissioned from civil servants.

There were other objections: Labour say many of the policies in that Tory dossier won’t cost half as much as the Conservatives claim.

But actually, surprising as it might sound, what’s most striking about this “bombshell” is how small it really is. Less of a bombshell; more of a hand grenade.

While £2,000 sounds like a big number, it’s actually a cumulative total from four years. A far more representative figure to take from the dossier is £500 – the annual figure.

And while that’s not to be sniffed at (if you believe it – which you probably shouldn’t) it’s far, far smaller than the tax rises we’ve all experienced under this Conservative government since 2019. They amount, all told, to an average of around £3,000 a year per household or, if we grit our teeth and tot it up as the Tories did in their dossier, over £13,000 over the course of the parliament. Which rather dwarfs that £2,000 figure.

Labour attack dossier is even more outlandish

So anyway, you’re probably hoping now we’ve explained the £2,000 from last night that we could leave things there. But sorry, no.

Because, this being the murky pre-manifesto period, Labour have gone one further and produced their own dossier, purporting to show Conservative fiscal plans for the coming years. But while the initial Tory document was somewhat conservative (with a small c) about its numbers, the Labour version is far more outlandish.

It assumes, for instance, that the Conservatives are planning to abolish National Insurance and inheritance tax overnight if they are elected. These are mammoth tax changes which the Conservatives have never committed to (they have made some vague noises about intending to abolish NICs but not in the next parliament).

Anyway, the Labour document takes these and other policies and works out that that would imply a black hole of roughly £70bn a year or a whopping £270bn when you tot up the first four years of the parliament (they actually provide five years of numbers but for the sake of comparability I’m looking solely at the first four years, as the Tories’ dossier did).

Divide that by the number of households (as the Tory document did) and you end up with a grand total over those four years not of £2,000 but of a staggering £14,000 per household.

Parties trading blows in the realms of fiscal fantasy

At this stage, now we’ve completely departed from realistic policy, you’re probably wondering when this silly saga will be over. Sadly the answer is: not yet.

Because having seen the Labour response, the Conservatives produced a second dossier, essentially saying: “Well, if you’re going to make all sorts of outlandish assumptions about the stuff we’ve vaguely talked about then can we have a go too?”

This final dossier includes all sorts of policies no one seriously expects Labour to implement this parliament: cutting corporation tax to 12.5%, scrapping business rates altogether, introducing French-style union laws. Add this all up and you end up with a grand total of £211bn a year or – if you multiply that by four years across a parliament, £844bn. So the best part of a trillion pounds.

We are of course in the realms of fiscal fantasy at this stage, but if you take that cumulative total and divide that by the number of households in the country you end up with an utterly ridiculous figure of £46,000.

Whether either party thinks these dossiers will change anyone’s mind in this election remains to be seen.

Right now they mostly look like an attempt to send economics correspondents completely crazy.

Both major parties are committed to tax rises

But the overarching point is as follows: both the major parties are committed to tax rises in the coming years. We know as much because the official Office for Budget Responsibility plans will see the tax burden increase sizeably, in large part because the main tax-free allowances are being frozen, ensuring everyone ends up paying more tax, once you adjust for inflation and rising wages.

These tax rises – the long-term consequences of the pandemic and the energy price guarantee – are quite likely to dwarf any measures we hear about in the coming manifestos.

But until we get those manifestos, the rest is, yes, speculation.

UK

Starmer vows to fight any plots to oust him – as Labour MPs fear major budget backlash

Published

4 hours ago

November 12, 2025

admin

Starmer vows to fight any plots to oust him - as Labour MPs fear major budget backlash

Sir Keir Starmer is vowing to fight any challenge to his leadership rather than stand aside, amid claims of plotting by MPs being compared to TV’s The Traitors.

Number 10 is going on the attack ahead of a difficult budget this month, with fears it could prove so unpopular that Labour MPs may move against Sir Keir.

But Sky News political editor Beth Rigby reports the prime minister “has no intention of giving way”, with allies warning any challenge would lead to a “drawn-out leadership election, spook the markets, and create more chaos that further damages the Labour brand”.

One senior figure told Rigby any move against Sir Keir would be more likely to arrive after next May’s elections, rather than the budget.

They said many Labour MPs could probably get behind measures like tax rises for wealthier workers, pensioners and landlords, as well as scrapping the two-child benefit cap, if that’s what the chancellor announces on 26 November.

But there are a series of potentially damaging elections in May, including in London and for the Senedd in Wales, as Labour face a challenge from Reform UK on the right and parties like the Greens and Plaid Cymru on the left.

Rigby said there is a “settled view among some very senior figures in the party that Starmer lacks the charisma and communication skills to take on Nigel Farage and win over the public, particularly if or when he breaks a bunch of manifesto pledges”.

Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves have refused to rule out breaking their manifesto promises not to raise income tax, national insurance, or VAT at the budget.

The Number 10 operation to ward off a challenge comes after Sky News deputy political editor Sam Coates likened the febrile mood in the Labour high command to the TV hit The Traitors.

Speaking on the Politics At Sam And Anne’s podcast, he said: “A minister got in touch at the start of the weekend to say they believe that there’s some quite substantial plotting going on.

“They say there was at least one cabinet minister telling colleagues that Keir Starmer, and I quote, is finished.”

We’ve been here before…

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

When Boris Johnson was facing mutiny from Conservative MPs, his allies launched “Operation Save Big Dog”.

When Margaret Thatcher was about to be ousted by her rebellious MPs in 1990, she declared: “I fight on, I fight to win.”

And Harold Wilson, constantly paranoid about plots, famously quipped in 1969: “I know what’s going on. I’m going on.”

Boris Johnson was ousted less than six months after “Operation Save Big Dog”, Margaret Thatcher resigned the following morning after saying “I fight on”, and Harold Wilson lost a general election to Edward Heath a year after vowing that he would go on.

Just saying.

Coates said the cabinet minister “absolutely and totally denies they are up to anything nefarious whatsoever”.

“I actually do think that this is all in the style of The Traitors, because I’m not sure that there is hard and fast evidence of plotting – there might be some hints from some quarters,” he added.

“But what seems to be completely logical is that if you’re a bit worried in Number 10, you’re trying to pitch roll and ward off people who are maybe thinking about the need to position themselves by starting to get out rumours of plots and hoping that the political system turns against them for disloyalty.”

Cloak-and-dagger

Reports emerged on Tuesday night in The Times, The Guardian, and from the BBC of a “bunker mode” in Number 10, “regime change”, and “plotting” to replace Sir Keir.

Responding to the reports, Health Secretary Wes Streeting denied he was seeking to oust the prime minister.

A spokesperson for Mr Streeting told Sky News: “These claims are categorically untrue.

“Wes’s focus has entirely been on cutting waiting lists for the first time in 15 years, recruiting 2,500 more GPs and rebuilding the NHS that saved his life.”

However, there is clearly a co-coordinated campaign by allies of the increasingly unpopular Sir Keir to try to prevent a leadership challenge by a cabinet minister or stalking horse.

Sir Keir’s biographer Tom Baldwin questioned the logic of those briefing from within the corridors of power.

“I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would think this sort of briefing will help Keir Starmer, the government, or even their own cause,” he said on social media. “Some people just can’t resist, I guess, but it’s all a bit nuts.”

What next?

It comes ahead of Prime Minister’s Questions this lunchtime, handing Tory leader Kemi Badenoch the chance to make it an awkward afternoon for Sir Keir.

The health secretary will start his day on Sky News’ Morning With Ridge And Frost and will then speak at an NHS providers’ conference.

Watch and follow live coverage across Sky News – including in the Politics Hub.

UK

Government to reconsider whether to give compensation to Waspi women

Published

4 hours ago

November 12, 2025

admin

Government to reconsider whether to give compensation to Waspi women

A decision not to award compensation to the Waspi women will be reconsidered by the government because of undisclosed “evidence”, the Work and Pensions Secretary has said.

Waspi women – Women Against State Pensions Inequality – are those born in the 1950s who say they were not given sufficient warning of the state pension age for women being lifted – to be in line with men – from 60 to 65.

Politics Live: Who are the Waspi women and what happened to them?

They have long argued that this was done too quickly, leaving some women financially unprepared to cope with the number of years when they were no longer able to claim their state pension.

The government said in December that they would not be compensated, because most women knew the changes were coming.

But Pat McFadden told the Commons on Tuesday: “Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report.”

The cabinet minister was referring to the rediscovery of a 2007 Department for Work and Pensions evaluation which had led to officials stopping sending automatic pension forecast letters out.

Mr McFadden said: “In light of this, and in the interest of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the government should now consider this evidence. This means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on State Pension age.”

Around 3.6 million women were impacted by the change to the state pension age. The government has previously said compensating them could cost £10.5bn.

Mr McFadden stressed that reviewing the decision should not be taken as an indication that the government will “decide that it should award financial redress”.

Angela Madden, the chair of Waspi, said the decision was a “major step forward”.

“The government now knows it got it wrong, and we are pleased they are now trying to do it properly,” she said.

“The only correct thing to do is to immediately compensate the 3.6 million Waspi women who have already waited too long for justice.”

The decision to refuse compensation was made despite a recommendation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) that the women should be paid up to £2,950 each.

The PHSO’s findings are not binding, and last year the then-work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall said that the cost could not be justified as most women knew about the changes.

Sir Keir Starmer also said compensation would “burden” the taxpayer.

UK

New law could help tackle AI-generated child abuse at source, says watchdog

Published

4 hours ago

November 12, 2025

admin

New law could help tackle AI-generated child abuse at source, says watchdog

Groups tackling AI-generated child sexual abuse material could be given more powers to protect children online under a proposed new law.

Organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), as well as AI developers themselves, will be able to test the ability of AI models to create such content without breaking the law.

That would mean they could tackle the problem at the source, rather than having to wait for illegal content to appear before they deal with it, according to Kerry Smith, chief executive of the IWF.

The IWF deals with child abuse images online, removing hundreds of thousands every year.

Ms Smith called the proposed law a “vital step to make sure AI products are safe before they are released”.

How would the law work?

The changes are due to be tabled today as an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill.

The government said designated bodies could include AI developers and child protection organisations, and it will bring in a group of experts to ensure testing is carried out “safely and securely”.

The new rules would also mean AI models can be checked to make sure they don’t produce extreme pornography or non-consensual intimate images.

“These new laws will ensure AI systems can be made safe at the source, preventing vulnerabilities that could put children at risk,” said Technology Secretary Liz Kendall.

“By empowering trusted organisations to scrutinise their AI models, we are ensuring child safety is designed into AI systems, not bolted on as an afterthought.”

AI abuse material on the rise

The announcement came as new data was published by the IWF showing reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material have more than doubled in the past year.

According to the data, the severity of material has intensified over that time.

The most serious category A content – images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal, or sadism – has risen from 2,621 to 3,086 items, accounting for 56% of all illegal material, compared with 41% last year.

Read more from Sky News:
Protesters storm COP30
UK stops some intel sharing with US

The data showed girls have been most commonly targeted, accounting for 94% of illegal AI images in 2025.

The NSPCC called for the new laws to go further and make this kind of testing compulsory for AI companies.

“It’s encouraging to see new legislation that pushes the AI industry to take greater responsibility for scrutinising their models and preventing the creation of child sexual abuse material on their platforms,” said Rani Govender, policy manager for child safety online at the charity.

“But to make a real difference for children, this cannot be optional.

“Government must ensure that there is a mandatory duty for AI developers to use this provision so that safeguarding against child sexual abuse is an essential part of product design.”